Should I shuffle? Will I benefit ?

Pupu wrote in post #15455427
If you do not have a constructive suggestion to share, please refrain yourself from blarerring.

Blabbering.


He was trying to merely provide counterpoint to your strict prescriptions.

YOU chose a not-too-cheap hobby in which there are many many ways to do things at several price levels.

Don't be like those complainers on "Love it or List it"

As photography is generally considered an art form, you need to feel it out!

So, what is your budget?

I suggest to get rid of the 100/2, pick up a 50/1.8 and a 430ex or 430ex2. That would allow you some additional flexibility during weddings and events.
Or:
You could sell all of your gear, and try and find a 5D(first gen), and a 17-40/4 L.
Or: sell the 100/2 if you can(it's always a question of if you can sell), yet an 10-22.

you're all over the place. You want primes, but you want less gear and more flexibility.... those things are at odds.

pick up the 10-20 sigma, followed by a flash.... you cant do events without a proper flash.... even the best primes in the world wont save you. get rid of the 100 F2 if you think you have too much gear. Believe it or not, you're not going to get much better gear than your 17-50 when on crop. You can pretty much get by a full event with that lens and flash alone....

Charlie wrote in post #15456512
you're all over the place. You want primes, but you want less gear and more flexibility.... those things are at odds.

Why do you think, flexibility always have to do with primes vs zooms. Come out of the book. Another way to look at it whether I can manage multiple genres of photography (say potraits / street / UWA) with very few lens...and this has nothing got to do with primes / zooms.

Charlie wrote in post #15456512
pick up the 10-20 sigma, followed by a flash.... you cant do events without a proper flash.... even the best primes in the world wont save you. get rid of the 100 F2 if you think you have too much gear. Believe it or not, you're not going to get much better gear than your 17-50 when on crop. You can pretty much get by a full event with that lens and flash alone....

This is much better constructive suggestion. 100mm f2 was never in the question. It was there in the list, to give an idea of what lens I currently own.

Allow me to repeat my question again :Whether 12-24mm + 35 /1.4 will be better than 17-50mm + 35/1.4, given my genre of interests. Should I keep the walkaround lens and use 17mm end of it for landscapes (a compromise) and get 35/1.4.
or will I be benifit more from 12-24mm + 35/1.4.

Again, nothing personal, I'm not sure if I'm not able to communicate my confusion, very well.

if we are sticking with a 3 lens max setup, imo these would be your best options:

Option 1: for maximum coverage:
any UWA
17-50mm
100mm
flash
tripod

Option 2: sounds like you really want a 35 prime
17-50mm
35mm
100mm
flash
tripod

both options would give you coverage for landscape, low-light, and portrait

you just have to decide which is more important to you, wider landscape shots (option 1) or to have a 35mm prime lens in your collection (option 2)

the 17-50mm is a very versatile lens which you'll probably want to keep in your collection

anyways, good luck with your purchase

---

haha, came back to give you another random option 3 to consider for the future maybe:

Option 3:
UWA
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8
70-200mm (you pick the trim)
flash
tripod